Dating pete daughtry
Granted, the site does include a correction further down to clear up the Pluto confusion; but by that stage, young Billy has already scribbled the wrong answer on his homework sheet.The same website was also the number one listing back in 2009 when I used this example for a magazine column on how the internet can make bad ideas and outdated information immortal.
But why can’t we revise the dates on our content “ex post facto”?But isn’t that how it be if the search engines are to avoid devolving into inaccurate collections of outdated information?The mere fact that I’m able to make the same argument five years later by using the same example sort of proves my point.Naturally, there are also many topics and categories of information that stay relevant and accurate for far longer.For example, the number of planets in our solar system can be assumed to be pretty much the same tomorrow as it is today.(Notice the “reader versus publisher” attitudes there…) So, who’s right?
Is the whole notion of evergreen content undermined by dates that gradually erode the value many readers place upon it? As a writer, I constantly use the internet for research.
Therefore, can we assume any planetary themed content is evergreen? Well, on August 24, 2006, that number did change when Pluto lost its membership card to the planetary club. Importantly, the date became a line in the sand, marking every planetary article and textbook published before the 24th as a little less reliable and a little more outdated.
Yet, if you search the word “planets” in Google, the top listing (undated) is still .
What does impact the evergreen nature of a post is not the date it was written, but whether or not the subject matter itself is out of date.
And without dating the post, the reader has no way of assessing that possibility.
If more search traffic is the prime argument for removing the date stamp from blog content, then doesn’t it also prove that people care about dates?